The Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act adds a new categorical bar to the Clean Air Act’s waiver authority: a State cannot receive or keep a waiver under section 209(b) for a standard that directly or indirectly limits the sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal combustion engines (defined by reference to 40 C.F.R. §63.9375 as of Jan 1, 2023). The bill also prevents EPA from treating standards amended after enactment as covered by pre‑enactment waivers and directs EPA to revoke any waivers granted between January 1, 2022 and enactment that do not meet the new requirement.
This is a narrow, procedural change to the Clean Air Act’s waiver mechanism rather than a new federal vehicle emissions standard. Its effect is to constrain the ability of states—most notably California and states that follow California standards—to pursue regulatory paths that would phase out or ban new internal combustion engine vehicle sales.
That has immediate implications for state climate and air‑quality programs, automakers’ market strategies, and potential litigation over waiver revocations and statutory interpretation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill modifies section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act to add an explicit exclusion: state standards that limit sale or use of new internal combustion engine vehicles are ineligible for waivers. It also blocks EPA from applying pre‑existing waivers to post‑enactment amendments and orders revocation of certain waivers issued between Jan 1, 2022 and enactment if they conflict with the new exclusion.
Who It Affects
States that adopt California‑style vehicle standards (and those that mirror them), the EPA Office of Air and Radiation tasked with processing waivers, automakers and dealers that sell internal combustion engine vehicles, and downstream industries tied to ICE vehicle supply and sales.
Why It Matters
By changing waiver eligibility rather than setting a federal emissions rule, the bill channels regulatory control to Congress and EPA rather than to individual states, shaping the legal terrain for state EV mandates and potentially triggering litigation over revocations and the definition of what 'limits the sale or use' means in practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act currently allows California to obtain a waiver from federal preemption for state vehicle emissions standards that are at least as protective as federal law; other states can then adopt those California standards. This bill inserts a clear cutline: if a state standard, directly or indirectly, limits the sale or use of new vehicles powered by internal combustion engines (using the federal regulatory definition in 40 C.F.R. §63.9375 as the referent), that standard cannot receive or be maintained under a section 209(b) waiver.
The language covers both direct bans and regulatory designs that would have the practical effect of eliminating ICE vehicle sales.
The bill also tightens how existing waivers interact with later state amendments. It instructs EPA not to treat standards amended after enactment as falling within the scope of an earlier waiver when that earlier waiver predated the enactment.
Separately, the Act requires EPA to examine waivers granted between Jan. 1, 2022 and the date of enactment and revoke any that fail to meet the new restriction on standards that limit ICE vehicle sale or use. That revocation direction is mandatory where EPA finds noncompliance with the new subparagraph.Practically, the law leaves federal emissions standards untouched but reshapes the vehicle regulatory market by removing one avenue states have used to push aggressive electrification timelines: the waiver route.
States could still regulate other aspects of vehicle emissions that do not implicate ICE sales directly, but any policy framed to phase out new ICE vehicle purchases would be explicitly ineligible for waiver protection. Expect questions about how indirect limits are measured, how the CFR cross‑reference is applied, and whether EPA has sufficient factual record to carry out the required revocations without provoking litigation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds subparagraph (D) to Clean Air Act §209(b)(1) to bar waivers for state standards that directly or indirectly limit the sale or use of new internal combustion engine vehicles, defined by reference to 40 C.F.R. §63.9375 (as of Jan. 1, 2023).
It adds a new paragraph preventing the EPA Administrator from treating post‑enactment amendments to state standards as covered by pre‑enactment waivers.
The Act directs EPA to revoke any waiver granted between Jan. 1, 2022 and enactment if EPA finds the waiver does not comply with the new subparagraph (D).
The bill does not create a federal emissions or vehicle sales standard; it only alters waiver eligibility and EPA’s authority to maintain or extend waivers.
Key operative terms—'directly or indirectly limit the sale or use' and the CFR cross‑reference—anchor future disputes about whether particular state measures (including sales mandates, zero‑emission vehicle targets, or compliance pathways) are disqualified.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
States the Act’s name, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act. This is a standard heading but signals the bill’s policy focus on preserving consumer access to internal combustion engine vehicles rather than addressing emissions outcomes directly.
Amendment to Clean Air Act §209(b)(1): new waiver exclusion
This subsection inserts a new subparagraph (D) into §209(b)(1), denying waivers for any state standards that 'directly or indirectly limit the sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal combustion engines' as defined by the cited CFR section. Mechanically, that removes waiver protection for a category of state actions—both explicit bans and regulatory designs that have the practical effect of eliminating ICE sales—shifting the locus of permissible state action on vehicle markets.
Non‑extension of pre‑enactment waivers to post‑enactment amendments
The bill adds a provision forbidding the Administrator from determining that state standards amended after enactment fall within the scope of waivers issued before enactment. Practically, this prevents EPA from interpreting older waivers to cover newer state rule changes that might reach the now‑excluded category, closing a potential loophole where states could amend rules after a waiver was granted and claim continuity.
Revocation mandate for recent waivers
This subsection requires the EPA Administrator to revoke any §209(b) waiver issued between Jan. 1, 2022 and the Act’s enactment date if the waiver does not comply with the new subparagraph (D). The clause places a temporal sweep on recent waiver decisions, obliging EPA to review and potentially unwind waivers rather than merely denying new ones going forward; that creates an affirmative administrative action with attendant recordkeeping and legal risk.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Automakers that continue to invest in and sell internal combustion engine (ICE) models — they avoid state waiver‑protected mandates that would remove ICE vehicles from certain state markets, preserving sales channels and longer product lifecycle strategies.
- Dealers and service networks concentrated on ICE vehicles — protecting ICE vehicle sales preserves parts, service revenue, and resale markets that depend on ICE adoption rates.
- Consumers preferring ICE vehicles — individuals who want to buy new ICE cars retain access in states where manufacturers and dealers continue offering them, rather than facing state‑level sales prohibitions.
Who Bears the Cost
- States pursuing aggressive electrification or zero‑emission vehicle mandates (notably California and mirror states) — the bill curtails a primary legal route those states use to require low‑ or zero‑emission new vehicle fleets and may force them to redesign policy tools or pursue alternative state authority.
- EPA Office of Air and Radiation — the agency must review waivers granted since Jan. 1, 2022, make revocation determinations, and defend those decisions in potential litigation, imposing administrative burdens and legal exposure.
- Manufacturers and EV infrastructure investors aiming for predictable, state‑driven market signals — sudden revocations or legal uncertainty could disrupt planning for EV production volumes and charging investments in affected states.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic trade‑off: preserve national consumer choice and a uniform market for ICE vehicles versus preserve states’ authority to adopt stricter vehicle standards to pursue air quality and climate goals; tightening waiver rules stops state‑level transitions that some see as essential to decarbonization but also prevents a patchwork of state bans that fragment the national vehicle market.
The bill pins its exclusion to a regulatory definition in 40 C.F.R. §63.9375 as of Jan. 1, 2023. That cross‑reference narrows the definitional fight to administrative records (what that CFR provision covers) but also freezes a technical reference date, which can be litigated as either too narrow or improperly applied to state policy varieties.
The 'directly or indirectly limit' phrasing is deliberately broad; operationalizing what counts as an 'indirect' limit will require factual, economic, and legal analysis—does a stringent ZEV sales mandate that leaves limited compliance pathways count as indirect limitation, or only explicit bans do? EPA will need to develop standards of proof and administrative records to support revocations or denials, and those records will likely be the focus of judicial review.
The revocation mandate covering waivers between Jan. 1, 2022 and enactment raises retrofit questions: if EPA revokes a waiver, what happens to state rules already implemented under that waiver, to compliance timelines, manufacturer compliance plans, and dealer inventories? The statute does not supply transitional mechanisms or funding to mitigate disruption, increasing the risk of immediate legal challenges under administrative law and even takings or commerce clause theories.
Finally, the bill leaves untouched federal emissions standards and does not create an affirmative federal alternative; it solves the 'state ban' issue by limiting waivers rather than proposing a uniform federal policy, which could create regulatory fragmentation if states seek other legal paths to advance decarbonization goals.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.